This article first appeared in the June 1998 issue of Phactum, the newsletter of the Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking. It is copyright (c) PhACT, 1998. All rights reserved. An chat with Joe Nickell On April 25, I had the pleasure of talking with skeptical investigator, Joe Nickell for a few hours before driving him to speak to PhACT for our annual luncheon. Joe is not your "average Joe," as revealed by his former occupations of: undercover detective, teacher, draft dodger, river boat manager, carnival promoter, magician, investigator and spokesperson. We owe a special debt to Joe for speaking at our formative meeting four years ago. Joe describes himself as having been raised to be fantasy prone. He admits he would honestly prefer that the shroud of Turin be the real thing -- and the same for ETs. Joe seems to be a sensitive person hurt by the chilling reception he often receives from believers. He has been known to respond to rude "shroudies" with, "I wish y'all would treat me in a more Christian manner". Joe impressed on me the difference between being a scientist and an investigator. Joe, like his mentor, James Randi, seems to have no formal credentials. In both cases, the lack of a single significant credential is much more than offset by a more important broad area of knowledge. Joe remarked that a scientist tends to approach an investigation from the narrow view of his own specialty -- whereas a "jack of all trades" would come up with more avenues of investigation. Joe feels that the most important thing in investigating is the up front planning of an "investigative strategy." This is a seasoned approach one takes to look into a claim. It may rely on information from libraries, other experts, snooping around, witnesses or help from other skeptics. Joe has credited help from a very wide range of experts and advises skeptics that such people can easily be cajoled into lending some gratis help just for a little credit and "a piece of the action." Joe (like Randi) is quick to reject the appellation, "debunker" for the more palatable title of "investigator." A debunker would start with an assumption and line up information to support such a conclusion (the mere flip side of the disingenuous true believer) -- whereas a investigator, no matter how jaded by experience, is after the facts and could be persuaded of a claim by valid evidence. Joe provided me with a timely example of having fairly well validated some Titanic flotsam. In addition to having done investigations since he was 10, Joe has penned 16 books -- his favorites being Pen & Ink Evidence and a book my kids love, The Magic Detectives. Joe deftly backs away from the subject of politics within the skeptical movement -- and offers that he tires of skeptics who nitpick other skeptics rather than investigate. He recommends that budding skeptics be willing to "pay their dues," to find a topic that really isn't covered and to become the expert on it. Joe's significant areas of expertise have been the shroud of Turin, the Nazca lines, ghosts, and document authentication. In his frequent media contacts, when he is asked, "Do you believe in XYZ," he insists the question be rephrased as, "Is there enough evidence to believe in XYZ?" He was recently very disappointed that Time magazine descended to having a very one sided review of the shroud. Shroudies have long shopped for experts -- simply ignoring those who admit that the "evidence" is mostly shoddy. Joe offers a number of reasons to be a "doubting Thomas" about the shroud: - There is ample evidence that the image is paint - All credible tests for blood have failed - The image fails to show a "wrap around" effect - The man is over 6 foot high which would be nearly unheard of for the time - There is no evidence of the biblically recorded spices used on the body - The fake blood painted near the scalp appears dripping whereas scalp wounds mat - There is written evidence of its being exposed as a fake in the 1300's - The hands are not crossed over the heart as done at the time - The biblical record tells of a number of strips being used to wrap a body - Radio-carbon dating dates it to the time it was thought to be forged In spite of all this, Time, in a bout of "mystery mongering," did not even refer to Nickell's authoritative book on the subject. Although Joe maintains that "being a skeptic is a thankless job," he doesn't insult the other side. He attacks the claims of phony miracles, not the religion they are claimed to justify. Joe does maintain good relations with a number of religionists and has been published by Christian Life magazine. In his entertaining and informative presentation to PhACT Joe cited not just shroud information but also his investigations of ghosts in Canada (which turned out to be industrial noises next door), the story of identical twin criminals, spontaneous human combustion, spirit writing, ghost photographs and the Nazca lines. In all these cases, Joe showed that careful investigation revealed that the more prosaic explanation (although shunned by miracle mongers) clearly fit the claim. We in PhACT appreciate Joe's visit and thank him for continuing to do, "the most thankless job in the world." Eric Krieg